[Cs5500] strengthening

[Karl Lieberherr]

I agree with Madhu that we had minimum strengthening to force steady
progress.
But that breaks down when we get close to the optimum.

Let's set minimum strengthening to 0.00000000001 (10^-10) in the
configuration file.
This is a reasonable compromise but will allow avatars to be lazy. But they
don't gain
reputation when they do that.

-- Karl

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:36 AM, karan bhat <bhat.r.karan at gmail.com> wrote:

> isn't  this a baby avatar and generating Strengthening like this
> should not matter ?, also Professor wants the strengthening out which
> can be mentioned in the config file.
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:27 AM, Madhuvanthi Balasubramanian
> <balasubramanian.m at husky.neu.edu> wrote:
> > Haoran,
> > Ideally, you could strengthen by any value, but using this expression
> > "claim.getQuality() - scg_cfg.getMinStrengthening()" lets the avatars
> learn
> > by improving the quality in small increments, and also prevents them from
> > strengthening with an invalid quality. I believe this could be the idea
> > behind having this expression to calculate quality.
> > On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Haoran Wu <haoran at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> For MinStrengthening problem, can we directly change the
> >> DEFAULT_SCG_CONFIG in SCGConfig, and make
> >> minStrengthening: 0.
> >>
> >> And we should tell undergrad, when generate Strengthening object, we are
> >> passing a double variable as
> >> argument(which is newQuality of claim), not limit to
> "claim.getQuality() -
> >> scg_cfg.getMinStrengthening()".
> >>
> >> Do you guys think it works?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >> Haoran
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Karl Lieberherr" <lieber at ccs.neu.edu>
> >> To: "Managing Software Development" <cs5500 at lists.ccs.neu.edu>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 2, 2011 9:35:23 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> >> Subject: [Cs5500] strengthening
> >>
> >>
> >> When my undergraduate class saw this code in the baby avatar:
> >>
> >> return new Strengthening(claim.getQuality() -
> >> scg_cfg.getMinStrengthening());
> >>
> >> they noted immediately that such a constant
> scg_cfg.getMinStrengthening()
> >> is a bad idea.
> >> We know why and we have eliminated the requirement to limit
> strengthening
> >> to be at least
> >> scg_cfg.getMinStrengthening().
> >>
> >> I want to make sure that the strengthening rule is no longer checked.
> >>
> >> I saw Haoran on the way home and he informally confirmed.
> >>
> >> -- Karl
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cs5500 mailing list
> >> Cs5500 at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> >> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/cs5500
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Cs5500 mailing list
> >> Cs5500 at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> >> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/cs5500
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >  Thanks
> > - Madhu
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Cs5500 mailing list
> > Cs5500 at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> > https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/cs5500
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cs5500 mailing list
> Cs5500 at lists.ccs.neu.edu
> https://lists.ccs.neu.edu/bin/listinfo/cs5500
>
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed